本文選題：隱性行政壟斷 + 法律規(guī)制�。� 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：隱性行政壟斷是行政機(jī)關(guān)或法律、法規(guī)授權(quán)的具有管理公共事務(wù)職能的組織等行政主體以不正當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)援助、行政管制或其他行政手段優(yōu)待、扶持或保護(hù)特定市場經(jīng)營主體,阻礙、限制或扭曲市場競爭或存在阻礙、限制、扭曲市場競爭威脅,但法律、行政法規(guī)尚未禁止的行政行為。該行為在表現(xiàn)形式上不同于《反壟斷法》等規(guī)制的行政壟斷行為,具有隱蔽性特點(diǎn)。行政主體通過行政權(quán)力不正當(dāng)優(yōu)待、扶持和保護(hù)特定市場經(jīng)營主體,受優(yōu)待、扶持或保護(hù)的市場經(jīng)營主體因而能夠獲得更多的市場交易機(jī)會和市場競爭優(yōu)勢,從而改變競爭者的競爭條件；并使競爭者之間的競爭蛻變?yōu)橐环N不公平競爭；這種不公平的市場競爭將使其他市場經(jīng)營主體處于不利地位,并在市場競爭中落敗而被迫退出市場競爭,而潛在競爭者也會因此放棄進(jìn)入該市場領(lǐng)域的意愿,從而導(dǎo)致該領(lǐng)域的市場競爭減少,最終產(chǎn)生阻礙、限制競爭的后果。因而上述行為與《反壟斷法》規(guī)制的行政壟斷在本質(zhì)上具有一致性。在當(dāng)前我國經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型時期,隱性行政壟斷有三種常見表現(xiàn)類型：第一種是行政主體對特定市場經(jīng)營主體進(jìn)行不正當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)援助行為。如無償或低價(jià)向特定市場經(jīng)營主體提供土地、礦產(chǎn)、頻譜、航線等稀缺資源,給予贈款等財(cái)政補(bǔ)貼(助)和減免稅、低利率融資貸款、核銷虧損等經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)惠政策。這類行為直接給予特定經(jīng)營者經(jīng)濟(jì)利益從而使其增強(qiáng)市場競爭力或保持其市場競爭優(yōu)勢。第二種是行政主體對特定市場經(jīng)營主體給予不正當(dāng)?shù)氖袌鲞M(jìn)入、產(chǎn)品(服務(wù))價(jià)格或數(shù)量等方面的行政管制保護(hù)的行為。國家對自然壟斷行業(yè)和關(guān)系國民經(jīng)濟(jì)命脈、國家安全等市場領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行市場準(zhǔn)入、價(jià)格或數(shù)量等方面的行政管制的初衷是維護(hù)社會公共利益；但隨著時代變遷、體制變革及科技進(jìn)步,國家在這些領(lǐng)域的行政管制有的已偏離原來的初衷和目的,淪為受管制企業(yè)謀取市場壟斷地位和壟斷利潤的工具,因而其正當(dāng)性逐漸喪失。第三種是行政主體對特定市場經(jīng)營主體的不正當(dāng)行政扶持行為,屬于間接給予特定市場經(jīng)營主體經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。常見表現(xiàn)形式有：行政主體在行政管理上給予特定市場經(jīng)營主體特殊待遇或法外特權(quán)；行政權(quán)力直接參與市場經(jīng)營,如鹽業(yè)、煙草政企合一的專營專賣制度、行政主體經(jīng)商辦企業(yè)、行政主體與特定市場經(jīng)營者合作或合資從事營利性活動；行政主體強(qiáng)制特定市場經(jīng)營主體兼并重組；行政主體協(xié)調(diào)特定市場經(jīng)營主體采取統(tǒng)一市場行動等。上述隱性行政壟斷行為具有廣泛的社會危害性：(1)導(dǎo)致市場不公平競爭,妨礙市場自由競爭,使市場競爭機(jī)制難以有效運(yùn)作,國企難以成為獨(dú)立的市場經(jīng)營主體,民營經(jīng)濟(jì)難以發(fā)展壯大,從而阻礙市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康發(fā)展。(2)使生產(chǎn)要素得不到有效使用,受隱性行政壟斷扶助、保護(hù)的企業(yè)經(jīng)營管理水平和經(jīng)濟(jì)效益普遍低下,從而導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)效率損失。(3)使受益企業(yè)忽視改革創(chuàng)新的重要性,從而失去改革創(chuàng)新的動力和積極性、主動性,甚而阻礙改革創(chuàng)新。(4)引發(fā)權(quán)力尋租,而權(quán)力尋租導(dǎo)致社會資源浪費(fèi),社會總成本增加；受隱性行政壟斷扶助和保護(hù)的企業(yè)向消費(fèi)者提供價(jià)高質(zhì)次的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù),不合理地增加消費(fèi)者的消費(fèi)成本,從而損害社會整體福利和消費(fèi)者利益。(5)滋生政府官員和企業(yè)管理人員腐敗和奢侈浪費(fèi),引發(fā)社會不公,損害政府形象。(6)行政主體對特定市場經(jīng)營主體實(shí)施不正當(dāng)補(bǔ)貼和優(yōu)惠政策等扶助、保護(hù)行為,違反了wT0的非歧視、公平競爭等原則和反補(bǔ)貼等協(xié)定,引發(fā)國際貿(mào)易摩擦和經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁,影響中國在國際貿(mào)易上的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)地位。針對隱性行政壟斷存在的上述危害性,本研究提出了多主體、多途徑的綜合法律規(guī)制思路,即建立起以反行政壟斷執(zhí)法為主,地方政府層級監(jiān)督和人民法院司法監(jiān)督相互配合、相互制約的反行政壟斷法律規(guī)制體系：(1)強(qiáng)化各級政府在規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷方面的作用。由《反壟斷法》明確規(guī)定各級政府負(fù)有通過抽象行政行為備案審查、行政復(fù)議等制度對隱性行政壟斷行為進(jìn)行事前、事中、事后層級監(jiān)督的職責(zé),從而強(qiáng)化各級政府在反隱性行政壟斷方面的責(zé)任,防止地方政府在此方面無所作為。(2)強(qiáng)化人民法院在規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷方面的作用。通過修改和完善《行政訴訟法》擴(kuò)大行政訴訟的受理范圍和審查權(quán)限,盡量將隱性行政壟斷納入行政訴訟制度的監(jiān)督范圍,以便更好地發(fā)揮人民法院通過司法程序規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷的作用。(3)強(qiáng)化反行政壟斷執(zhí)法在規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷方面的主導(dǎo)地位和作用。行政復(fù)議制度和人民法院行政訴訟制度對隱性行政壟斷行為的監(jiān)督是被動的,且監(jiān)督范圍和方式均具有較大的局限性；因此,規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷應(yīng)以反行政壟斷執(zhí)法為主,應(yīng)通過對《反壟斷法》修改和完善,構(gòu)建起獨(dú)立、權(quán)威、高效的反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)制,以適應(yīng)反行政壟斷執(zhí)法工作的需要。一是在《反壟斷法》中完善反行政壟斷的立法目的、基本原則。即將維護(hù)社會公共利益和市場公平、自由競爭秩序規(guī)定為反行政壟斷的立法目的；并將市場經(jīng)濟(jì)內(nèi)在的效率價(jià)值確定為反行政壟斷立法的基本原則,從而為區(qū)分隱性行政壟斷確立法定的評判準(zhǔn)則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。二是通過對行政壟斷進(jìn)行法律定義,以“不正當(dāng)性”代替“濫用行政權(quán)力”作為行政壟斷的構(gòu)成要件或區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；擴(kuò)大《反壟斷法》規(guī)定的行政壟斷范圍,將隱性行政壟斷納入法律規(guī)制范圍；在列舉式規(guī)定中設(shè)定兜底條款并授予反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)自由裁量權(quán),以便對復(fù)雜多樣的行政權(quán)力導(dǎo)致市場不公平競爭等其他間接排除、限制競爭行政行為是否構(gòu)成行政壟斷進(jìn)行區(qū)分、確認(rèn)。三是建立獨(dú)立、權(quán)威、高效的反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)制。即建議《反壟斷法》規(guī)定在國務(wù)院反壟斷委員會下設(shè)單獨(dú)的反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu),實(shí)行垂直領(lǐng)導(dǎo),承擔(dān)反行政壟斷執(zhí)法任務(wù)；并通過《反壟斷法》授予該執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)調(diào)查權(quán)、強(qiáng)制權(quán)、裁量權(quán)、撤銷權(quán)、制裁權(quán)等強(qiáng)有力的執(zhí)法權(quán)力,以提高反行政壟斷執(zhí)法的權(quán)威性；完善反行政壟斷立案、調(diào)查、處理和執(zhí)行程序,強(qiáng)化對行政壟斷違法行為主體的行政、民事和刑事法律責(zé)任追究機(jī)制,以增強(qiáng)反行政壟斷執(zhí)法的有效性。四是建立由反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)對國家行政管制等國家壟斷法律制度的正當(dāng)性進(jìn)行立法前和立法后評價(jià)的制度,從反行政壟斷執(zhí)法角度對不具有正當(dāng)性的國家壟斷行為進(jìn)行法律監(jiān)督；建立國家壟斷的利害關(guān)系人對喪失正當(dāng)性的國家壟斷行為申請反行政壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)異議審查制度,為當(dāng)事人對喪失正當(dāng)性的國家壟斷尋求法律救濟(jì)提供正當(dāng)有效的途徑。(4)通過相關(guān)法律的配套完善和修改,使相關(guān)法律與《反壟斷法》的精神保持一致,從而在規(guī)制行政壟斷方面形成合力,并為反隱性行政壟斷執(zhí)法掃清障礙。一是完善宏觀調(diào)控法、價(jià)格法、財(cái)稅法等市場經(jīng)濟(jì)法。通過制定宏觀調(diào)控法,為政府與市場劃定界線,以減少行政主體對市場的不當(dāng)干預(yù),防止行政主體借宏觀調(diào)控之名實(shí)施隱性行政壟斷行為。完善價(jià)格法,增強(qiáng)價(jià)格管制行為的公正性和科學(xué)性,防止利益集團(tuán)利用價(jià)格管制謀取暴利和坑害消費(fèi)者。修改相關(guān)財(cái)稅法律制度,以解決當(dāng)前不合理的財(cái)政轉(zhuǎn)移支付制度和財(cái)稅體制引發(fā)的基層政府財(cái)政困難、事權(quán)和財(cái)權(quán)嚴(yán)重不匹配而促使行政主體濫施隱性行政壟斷增加財(cái)政收入問題。二是完善和修改行政組織法、行政程序法、行政許可法等行政法。應(yīng)盡快出臺省、自治區(qū)、直轄市級政府的組織法和市、縣、鄉(xiāng)(鎮(zhèn))級政府的組織法及國務(wù)院各部門的組織法,將行政主體的職責(zé)權(quán)限盡量規(guī)定得具體明確,不留彈性地帶。制定行政程序法,規(guī)范行政主體行政決策和行政執(zhí)法程序,保證利害關(guān)系人在行政決策、行政執(zhí)法程序中的正當(dāng)權(quán)利。修改行政許可法,在有關(guān)行政許可設(shè)定范圍的規(guī)定中體現(xiàn)十八屆三中全會負(fù)面清單管理內(nèi)容。通過上述法律規(guī)制措施,最終形成一個全覆蓋、多層次、多途徑和各執(zhí)法主體分工明確、相互銜接和緊密配合的規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷的法律機(jī)制和體系,實(shí)現(xiàn)行政主體及行政官員在嚴(yán)格監(jiān)督之下的“不敢”和完善法律制度下的“不能”,從而達(dá)到有效規(guī)制隱性行政壟斷的目的。
[Abstract]:The recessive administrative monopoly is an administrative organ or law. The administrative body, such as an organization that has the function of managing the public affairs, is given undue economic aid, administrative control or other administrative means, to support or protect the subject of a specific market, obstruct, restrict or distort the market competition, restrict and distort the competitive power of the market. The administrative act which is not prohibited by the law and administrative regulations. The act is different from the administrative monopoly of the anti monopoly law. It has the concealment characteristics. The administrative subject is undue to the administrative power to support and protect the main body of the specific market, which is favored, supported or protected by the market management body. Enough market trading opportunities and market competitive advantages to change the competitive conditions of competitors and make competition between competitors a kind of unfair competition; this unfair market competition will put other market operators at a disadvantage and are forced to withdraw from market competition when they are defeated in the market competition, The potential competitors will also give up the desire to enter the market, which leads to a reduction in the market competition in this field, and eventually a hindrance to the consequences of competition. Therefore, the above behavior is in essence consistent with the administrative monopoly regulated by the antitrust law. In the current period of economic transformation in China, there are three kinds of common administrative monopolies. Type of expression: the first is the improper economic aid behavior of the administrative subject to the specific market operating subject, such as providing land, mineral, spectrum, route and other scarce resources to the specific market operators without compensation or low price, giving grants and other financial subsidies (assistance) and tax relief, low interest rate financing loans, and cancellation of losses and other economic preferential policies. Such acts are directly given to the economic interests of specific operators so that they can enhance their market competitiveness or maintain their competitive advantage in the market. The second is the administrative management protection of the administrative subject to the specific market operating subjects, the price or quantity of the product (service). The market access of the national economy, the market areas of national security and other market areas, the original intention of the administrative control in terms of price or quantity, is to safeguard the social and public interests. However, with the changes of the times, the reform of the system and the progress of science and technology, the administrative control of the state in these fields has deviated from its original intention and purpose, and has been reduced to a controlled enterprise. The market monopoly status and the monopoly profit tool, thus its legitimacy gradually loses. The third kinds are the administrative main body to the specific market operation main body undue administrative support behavior, belongs to the specific market management main body economic benefit indirectly. Common forms are: the administrative subject gives the specific market management subject in the Administration. Special treatment or extrajudicial privilege; administrative power directly participates in the market operation, such as the salt industry, the monopoly of the monopoly system of tobacco government and enterprise, the administrative subject to business enterprises, the administrative subject and the specific market operators to cooperate or engage in for-profit activities; the administrative subject compels the specific market operation subject to merge and reorganize; the administrative subject is coordinated to the particular. The main body of market management takes unified market action. The above recessive administrative monopoly has widespread social harmfulness: (1) it causes unfair competition in the market, hinders the free competition of the market, makes the market competition mechanism difficult to operate effectively, the state-owned enterprises are difficult to become independent market operators, and the private economy is difficult to develop and grow, thus hindering the city. The healthy development of the field economy. (2) to make the factors of production not effective, under the support of the recessive administrative monopoly, the management level and the economic benefit of the protected enterprises are generally low, which leads to the loss of economic efficiency. (3) the benefit enterprises ignore the importance of reform and innovation, and lose the motivation and enthusiasm of reform and innovation, initiative and even resistance. Hindering reform and innovation. (4) it causes power rent-seeking, and power rent-seeking leads to the waste of social resources, and the total social cost increases; the enterprises which are supported and protected by the recessive administrative monopoly provide the products and services with high quality and quality to the consumers, unreasonably increase the consumer's consumption cost, and damage the overall welfare of the society and the interests of the consumers. (5) (5) Corruption and extravagance and waste of government officials and enterprise managers cause social injustice and damage the image of the government. (6) the administrative bodies carry out unfair subsidies and preferential policies on specific market operators, protect behavior, violate the non discrimination of wT0, fair competition and other principles and countervailing agreements, which lead to international trade frictions and economic system. In view of the harm to the market economy of China in international trade, in view of the above-mentioned harmfulness of the recessive administrative monopoly, this study puts forward a multi subject and multiple way of comprehensive legal regulation, that is to establish an anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, the local government level supervision and the judicial supervision of the Civil Law Institute are mutually complementary and mutually restrictive. The legal regulation system of political monopoly: (1) strengthening the role of the government at all levels in the regulation of the recessive administrative monopoly. The responsibility of the anti recessive administrative monopoly prevents the local government from doing nothing in this respect. (2) strengthening the role of the people's court in the regulation of the recessive administrative monopoly. By modifying and perfecting the administrative litigation law, expanding the scope and authority of the administrative litigation, the implicit administrative monopoly is tried to be included in the supervisory model of the administrative litigation system as far as possible. In order to better play the role of the people's court in regulating the recessive administrative monopoly through judicial procedure. (3) strengthening the dominant position and role of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement in the regulation of recessive administrative monopoly. The supervision of the administrative reconsideration system and the administrative litigation system of the people's court is passive and supervises the scope and side. Therefore, the regulation of recessive administrative monopoly should be based on anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, and the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement mechanism which is independent, authoritative and efficient should be constructed to adapt to the need of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement through the amendment and perfection of the antitrust law. The aim of the law is to safeguard the public interests and market equity, and the free competition order is defined as the legislative purpose of anti administrative monopoly, and the intrinsic efficiency value of the market economy is determined as the basic principle of anti administrative monopoly legislation, thus establishing the legal criteria and standards for distinguishing the recessive administrative monopoly. Two Administrative monopoly is defined as the legal definition of "unjustifiable" instead of "abuse of administrative power" as the constituent element or distinction standard of administrative monopoly; enlarging the scope of administrative monopoly stipulated in the antitrust law and incorporating the hidden administrative monopoly into the scope of legal regulation; setting the submission clause in the enumerated provisions and granting anti administrative monopoly law enforcement The institution has the right to discretionary, so as to distinguish the unfair competition of the market from the unfair competition of the complex and diverse administrative power, restrict the administrative monopoly of the competition, and confirm that three is the establishment of an independent, authoritative and efficient anti administrative monopoly law enforcement mechanism. Set up a separate anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agency, carry out vertical leadership, undertake anti administrative monopoly law enforcement task, and grant the law enforcement agency investigation power through < antitrust law > power, discretion, revocation right, sanction power and other powerful law enforcement power to improve the authority of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement; improve anti administrative monopoly filing, investigation, Process and implement procedures, strengthen the administrative monopoly of administrative monopoly, civil and criminal legal responsibility investigation mechanism to enhance the effectiveness of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement. Four is to establish a system of pre legislative and legislative evaluation of the legitimacy of the state monopoly law system by the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agencies. From the angle of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, the legal supervision of state monopoly behavior which is not justified is carried out, and the establishment of a state monopoly interested party to apply for the objection review system of the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agency by applying for the state monopoly of the loss of justice, to provide the right for the parties to seek legal relief for the state monopoly of the loss of justice. (4) through the complete and modified relevant laws, the relevant laws and the spirit of the antitrust law are consistent, thus forming a joint force in the regulation of administrative monopoly and clearing obstacles for the anti recessive administrative monopoly law enforcement. One is to improve the macro regulation law, the price law, the financial and tax law and other market economic laws. To delimit the boundary between the government and the market in order to reduce the improper intervention of the administrative subject to the market, prevent the administrative subject from carrying out the recessive administrative monopoly in the name of macro regulation, improve the price law, enhance the fairness and scientificity of the price regulation, and prevent the interest groups from using the price management system to gain the profits and harm the consumers. The legal system is to solve the financial difficulties caused by the current unreasonable financial transfer payment system and the financial and tax system, and the serious mismatch between the power and the financial power. The two is to improve and amend the administrative law, the administrative procedure law, the administrative licensing law and so on. The organization law of provincial, autonomous region and municipal government and the organization law of municipal, county and township level government and the organization law of various departments of the State Council are promulgated as soon as possible. The responsibilities and powers of the administrative subject are defined as specific and clear as far as possible. The administrative procedure law is formulated, the administrative decisions and administrative law enforcement procedures of the administrative subjects are standardized, and the interests of the interests are guaranteed. The right of human being in administrative decision and administrative law enforcement procedure. To amend the administrative license law and to embody the content of negative list management in the provisions of the scope of administrative license setting in the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. Through the above-mentioned legal regulation measures, a full cover, multi-level, multi way and each law enforcement subject have a clear division of labor. Closely cooperating with the legal mechanism and system of recessive administrative monopoly, we can realize the "dare not" under the strict supervision by the administrative subject and the administrative officials and perfect the "cannot" under the legal system, so as to achieve the purpose of effectively regulating the recessive administrative monopoly.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.294
，

本文編號：1785972